Sri Lanka's president has confirmed the 30-month jail term imposed on former army chief Sarath Fonseka following his conviction by a military court, an official said Thursday.

President Mahinda Rajapakse approved the prison sentence for a period of two-and-a-half years after returning Wednesday from New York where he addressed the UN General Assembly, a senior government official said.

"The court martial has recommended up to three years in jail, but the president has decided he will be in prison for 30 months," the official, who did not want to be named, said.

Fonseka, 59, was charged with four counts of making irregular purchases for the military when he was its commander at the height of fighting with Tamil Tiger rebels.

The conviction on September 17 came after Fonseka was stripped of his rank and pension following another court martial that found him guilty last month of dabbling in politics while in uniform.

Fonseka's Democratic National Alliance (DNA) has said the military court process was seriously flawed and is appealing to a civilian court against the verdicts.

Fonseka fell out with the government and unsuccessfully tried to unseat Rajapakse, 64, in January presidential polls.

Fonseka was arrested two weeks after his defeat in the elections and has remained in military custody since. However, he won a seat in parliamentary elections in April allowing him to attend parliament.

He has said the government is seeking revenge for his decision to stand against the president and wants to keep him from speaking in parliament.

The first court martial ordered the removal of the medals he had earned during his 40-year military career as well as stripping him of his rank and pension.

He also faces civilian charges of employing army deserters, as well as revealing state secrets -- offences that carry a 20-year jail term. He has also challenged in the Supreme Court the re-election of Rajapakse.

The 37-year ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka ended in May last year when government forces led by Fonseka wiped out the Tamil Tiger separatist group which had fought since 1972 for a Tamil homeland.

The United Nations estimates that at least 7,000 ethnic Tamil civilians were killed in the final months of fighting between government troops and the Tamil Tigers.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

By C. Jaishankar | The Hindu.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Officers of the Indian Navy on Wednesday held talks with Sri Lankan Navy personnel on the reported attacks on Indian fishermen, and discussed ways to avoid such incidents.

The talks were held on board the INS Kukri, an offshore patrol vessel, at the International Maritime Boundary Line near Point Calimere.

On board INS Kukri

Commodore Rajiv Girotra, Naval Officer In-Charge, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, who led the Indian Navy delegation, told The Hindu that the Indian Navy had brought to the notice of the Sri Lankan Navy reports of incidents allegedly involving the Sri Lankan Navy and Indian fishermen.

Besides Commodore Rajiv Girotra, the Indian team included Deputy Inspector General Y.K. Singh, Chief of Staff, Operations, Coast Guard, Eastern Region and six others.

The Sri Lankan side was represented by a 7-member delegation.

While the Indian delegation, which flew from the INS Parundu, a naval air station at Uchipuli, landed on the INS Kukri in a helicopter, the Sri Lankan delegation reached IMBL by a ship of the Sri Lankan Navy.

Besides the attacks on the fishermen, a number of issues, including the post-war scenario, security challenges along the International Maritime Boundary Line and poaching by fishermen of both countries were discussed at the mid-sea meeting.

Asked about the outcome of the talks, Commodore Girotra said the Sri Lankan Navy, which knew of the issues concerning the Indian fishermen, particularly those from Tamil Nadu, promised to address them.

According to him, there would not be any further incidents of harm to the fishermen.

It was important for the Indian Navy to ensure safety and security of the fishermen. It would extend cooperation in many areas.

Mr. Girotra added that there was adequate mechanism for patrolling along the International Maritime Boundary Line.

The Indian Navy and other agencies would intensify patrolling wherever it was required.

Sri Lanka is seeking foreign help to care for nearly 90,000 women who have been widowed due to the island's Tamil separatist war which ended last year, a minister said Wednesday.

Child Development and Women's Affairs Minister M. L. A. M. Hizbullah told reporters some 12,000 war widows were below the age of 40. Around 8,000 widows have three or more children to care for.

"We need help to look after the war widows and we are seeking help from abroad for this," the minister said.

He said the government had already asked neighbouring India to provide vocational training for the widows.

He said his ministry had a list of 49,000 widows in the island's embattled eastern province and another 40,000 in the the northern province where final battles between troops and Tamil Tiger rebels were fought last year.

The minister's latest figures suggested that the number of people killed in Sri Lanka's Tamil separatist conflict from 1972 to 2009 could be higher than the 100,000 estimated by the United Nations.

The military has estimated it killed more than 25,000 Tiger rebels in the final months of fighting while official estimates show 20,000 to 25,000 troops, police and paramilitary personnel were also killed between 1972 and 2009.

Security forces crushed the top leadership of the Tamil Tigers in May last year after a no-holds-barred offensive which has attracted calls for an international probe into alleged war crimes by both sides.

It urges Sri Lanka's donors and the UN to urge Colombo to improve its human rights situation.

It also questions the reasons for continuing the state of emergency.

The human rights watchdog says there is a "legal vacuum" over the detention of former Tamil Tiger "surrendees".

There has so far been no response to the report from the Sri Lankan government.

The ICJ says that the donor support for Sri Lanka "must be provided only on condition of compliance with international law and standards, or else risk complicity in a policy of systematic mass arbitrary detention".

The ICJ however recognised the progress made in terms of releasing displaced people from camps and in releasing 565 former child soldiers after rehabilitation.

The government argues that the threat posed by the Tamil Tigers still exists despite their military victory over them in May 2009.

It says it is important to keep the state of emergency until the process of vetting them is over.

Addressing the UN General Assembly last week, President Mahinda Rajapaksa called for a rethink of international rules governing the conduct of war.

But the watchdog questions the reasons for maintaining emergency regulations and the Preventing of Terrorism Act (PTA).

"Conditions on the ground cannot be considered to give rise to a threat to the life of the nation so far as to justify a state of emergency," the ICJ said.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Lanka Business Online.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Sri Lanka is offering 200 acres of land for commercial agriculture on the bank of a major river bordering the island north-eastern region, meeting long-standing requests from businesses for land, a statement said.

The land is available in plots of 50 acres each in the Maduru Oya river south bank of the Mahaweli River B zone, the statement by the Mahaweli Authority said.

Investors will have to get water for irrigation from tube wells, it said.

Preference will be given to agri-businesses approved by the investment promotion agency, the Board of Investment, and those paying taxes, the statement said.

Selected investors will have to make a million rupee deposit with the Authority which will be returned in two years if the Authority is satisfied with the progress of the venture.

The offer comes in response to repeated requests from agri-business firms who have been clamouring for land on which to start commercial agriculture.

Jonathan Miller writes on the aftermath of Sri Lanka's gruelling war with the Tamil Tigers and whether there will be an investigation into the deaths of Tamil civilians during the fighting.

In January 2009, I reported from Gaza in the aftermath of the Israelis’ 22-day operation there in which Palestinians claimed more than 1,400 civilians had been killed.

By September that year, a UN fact-finding mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone, had concluded by both sides had committed serious war crimes and, in some cases, possibly crimes against humanity.

In Sri Lanka there has been no such investigation; no one has been held to account.

Although the UN officially maintains that an estimated 7,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the last five months of the fighting in Sri Lanka, many credible estimates put the figure much higher.

Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and now the President of the International Crisis Group told Channel 4 News she believed that it was "not implausible" that more than 30,000 civilians had been killed.

Ms Arbour says peace demands justice and says the scale of civilian deaths and suffering demands a response. But there has been no response.

Sri Lanka’s Tamils - despite promises that they would be protected and would enjoy equal rights - remain a vanquished minority. Impunity reigns.

President Mahinda Rajapakse, the man who made the munificent promises, today rules like a god-king, unchallenged and, now, unchallengable.

His enemies are in jail or in exile - or are cowed into silence. In September 2010, parliament granted the President sweeping new powers.

A Tamil MP talked of the death of democracy. An independent trades union warned: "It is time that all democratic forces wake up to the danger the country faces." But democratic forces are dwindling.

Sunway Holdings BHD is making its foray into Sri Lanka to undertake a mixed development project with a gross development value of RM250 million.

Sunway said on Friday, Sept 24 it was teaming up with Dasa Tourist Complex Pte Ltd to build residential and commercial units in Colombo.

Its unit, SunwayMas Sdn Bhd will have a 65% stake in the JV company and Dasa Tourist 35%.

The mixed development will comprise of at least 318,000 sq ft of net saleable areas of residential units and 60,000 sq ft of net saleable areas of commercial units in Colombo city.

Sunway managing director Yau Kok Seng said the project would consist of a 34-storey building comprising 70 commercial units and 180 residential units on prime freehold land in the premium mixed-use zone of Bambalapitiya in District Colombo 4.

He said the project was expected to be launched in the second quarter of next year and to be completed by mid-2014. He added it would contribute “very positively” to the bottom line of the group.

“We are targeting Sri Lankans in the high-medium income and the high-end income groups. Even foreigners and those who are part of the Sri Lankan diaspora are expected to be interested,” he told a press conference.

On the pricing, Yau said the group was anticipated to launch the upmarket property with the residential units priced at about US$200 (RM618) per sq ft while that of commercial units at US$350 per sq ft.

"We are anticipating more than 20% net margin from this project," he said adding that the project enjoyed a five-year "tax holiday" from the Sri Lankan government from the time of completion.

Yau said the project would increase Sunway's landbank to more than 430 acres with potential GDV of RM2.6 billion which would be developed over the next three years.

Dasa Group chairman and founder S D Gunadasa said the JV marked an important milestone for the company's first venture in mixed development in Sri Lanka, stressing that it looked forward to more collaborations with Sunway Holdings in its future expansions.

"While the Sri Lankan property market gears itself for robust growth in the next five years, international collaborations with premier property players such as Sunway Holdings will contribute immensely to raise the standards in the industry as well as to create new benchmarks," he added.

On a late-summer day, a dozen tractors stopped in front of a Hindu temple just north of Jaffna, the once-future capital of an independent Tamil state. Each vehicle held aloft long wooden planks from which young men, with large metal hooks piercing the flesh of their backs and legs, hung horizontally; enormous crowds gathered around to watch and make offerings to the Hindu goddess Durga. It was a standard religious rite, an act of penance offered to a local deity -- and a sight largely unseen throughout the nearly three decades of war between Tamil separatists and the Sri Lankan government that ended in May 2009.

More than a year later, the rhythms of ordinary life are slowly returning. The overnight curfew has been lifted, local markets are doing brisk business, and the streets bustle with traffic, as tractors, bikers, buses, pedestrians, and sometimes even cattle jockey for space. Residents are cautiously optimistic now that the war, which caused an estimated 100,000 deaths and displaced more than a million people since it began in 1983, is over.

Jaffna, a peninsular city on Sri Lanka's northernmost tip, suffered the most. As the country's largest Tamil-majority city, Jaffna became headquarters for the Tamil Tiger separatist insurgency; as a result, it essentially lived under siege or military blockade for the nearly 30 years of conflict. Road closures and checkpoints cut it off from the rest of the country, and the land mines that dotted the city kept the populace in constant fear. The economy was a shambles: Power outages were a regular occurrence, and goods were scarce. When they were available, they were often exorbitantly priced. The Tigers were effectively driven out of the city in 1995, but peace didn't return until the separatists' leadership was entirely decimated last year.

Jaffna is now firmly under the civilian control of the Sri Lankan government in Colombo -- a situation whose attendant security benefits even locals seem to welcome. But a long-term political settlement with the Tamils has yet to be achieved, leading to quiet, but unmistakable tension on the streets.

"People are living freely," says Aiyathurai Satchithanandam, a Tamil journalist. "There is no fear, but where is the political solution?" Without it, he maintains, there will be no lasting peace.

Most Tamils were never party to the armed conflict against the Sri Lankan state, but many are still dissatisfied by the post-bellum political status quo; they nurse longstanding grievances against the government in Colombo for its lack of respect and recognition of their language and culture. They still seek "equal rights and equal opportunity," Satchithanandam says, and at their most ambitious they envision something akin to Canada's multi-national federal framework, with self-rule on a local level for Tamil-occupied areas in the country's north and east. Tamils expect to be presented with a political compromise, and soon.

"This is the most opportune moment to introduce a political solution," says Mirak Raheem, a senior researcher at the nonpartisan Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA), a Sri Lankan NGO. Having won the war, Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa is enjoying wide popularity, Raheem notes. Tamils -- as well as many other Sri Lankans -- expect him to leverage his political capital for a lasting peace while he has the chance.

Judged from life in Jaffna, while the war is certainly over, Tamil autonomy seems a distant dream. The first thing one notices about the city is the overwhelming military presence. By some estimates, there are as many as 40,000 Sri Lankan soldiers on the tiny peninsula. According to a European development worker, however, that marks an improvement. "There used to be armed soldiers every 20 meters; now it's about every 50," he says. But their very presence is a reminder of their mandate: to ensure that Tamils obey Colombo's writ.

Ironically, the soldiers might now themselves be fomenting a renewed Tamil resistance. Many Tamils point to the amount and quality of land the Sri Lankan Army has occupied in Jaffna. Eighteen percent of the peninsula is designated a "High Security Zone" -- land that used to belong to Tamils, but is now virtually off limits to anyone not in army uniform. The seizure of land has also complicated the resettlement of those Tamils who fled or were forced to flee during the last 30 years of violence. Some have been relocated elsewhere, but many thousands more remain in makeshift refugee camps that have outraged the Tamil population at large, as well as international human rights observers.

Tamils are also unnerved by the fact that the soldiers are almost entirely of the country's dominant Sinhalese ethnicity, and thus don't readily speak Tamil. In fact, the only language they usually share is English, their common colonial tongue. Tamils are so discomfited by the Sinhalese soldiers that they take pains to avoid earning their attention. Locals instruct their guests not to take photos of monuments dedicated to Tamil resistance figures until the Sri Lankan Army is out of sight; residents of Jaffna also show a preference for hiring taxis and rickshaws with older drivers, because Sri Lankan soldiers more readily suspect young people of being militants.

The war's legacy is most evident in the city's devastated infrastructure. Bombed-out, bullet-pocked buildings are scattered throughout the city. Jaffna's central train station is now a massive ruin. The once-proud waterfront is now a sorrowful stretch of hollow building foundations, battleground remnants from the 1980s and 1990s.

Still, despite the simmering tension and lingering destruction, the people of Jaffna are mostly upbeat. Perhaps more than anything else, they are enjoying their freedom of movement. "For the first time in 30 years, we can go to the hospital in Colombo," one local says.

Restaurants and hotels are reporting that business is increasing after decades of stagnation. Indeed, there has been a spike in domestic and expat travel since the road connecting Jaffna to the rest of the country opened in January -- though some locals worry that tourism will drop precipitously once the novelty of visiting this once-forbidden city wears off.

Unfortunately, Colombo has been slow to commit resources or energy to a long-term rebuilding program for Jaffna. "In terms of development," says the CPA's Raheem, "the local concerns of the [Tamil] people are not being taken into account. They are feeling the lack of consultation and participation, and there is an overall sense of disempowerment."

Tamils are still enjoying the immediate fruits of peace, but everyone knows it is a fragile calm. Satchithanandam, who in addition to his reporting duties also writes the horoscopes for the daily newspaper at which he works, offers a less-than-reassuring prediction. The people of Jaffna are willing to struggle nonviolently for some measure of political autonomy and economic dignity, but, he says, "If they have to, they will fight."

It is true that Sri Lanka has rarely been a model of transparency. Still, what conceivable reason could there have been for preventing foreign media from covering public hearings of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission held earlier this month in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu?

If the long-suffering Tamils that gave evidence before the LLRC at these two venues are to be deprived of having their story heard by those who want to hear it, have any lessons been learnt at all?

‘Incarceration’ of information

In post-LTTE Sri Lanka, archaic laws are repeatedly invoked throughout the government sector to prevent essential information from reaching voters. Take a recent example - President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s visit to New York. Ideally, journalists should not have to beg for information about this luxurious pilgrimage (as it has transpired to be for most).

How many were on the president’s delegation; what business did each have to be on that delegation; where were they accommodated; was a flight chartered to fly them there or did they take the cheapest travel options; how long would they stay there; and, crucially, how much does the visit cost the tax-paying public. But none of this information is volunteered while raising these questions does not get a journalist anywhere.

In the absence of a vibrant opposition, we are left to depend on disgruntled persons within the government apparatus to leak the facts. And spiralling state control of the public sector may soon put an end to such ‘impudence’.

During the difficult period of the conflict, all manner of information was withheld from the public on the pretext of it being “sensitive” and “harmful” to either the war effort or the country. In many cases, it was neither.

After the war, vast categories of information continue to be controlled. The overriding concern appears to be that the release of such information will cause voters to disfavour the government and must therefore be religiously hidden. For example, it remains impossible to obtain accurate data about public expenditure and state deals or contracts.

Pointless exercise

But some of the government’s actions in this regard simply make no sense. Take the repeated confiscation of The Economist by customs authorities each time it publishes a story on Sri Lanka that may seem critical of the Rajapaksa regime. Customs sends it for approval to the Department of Government Information and it is, more often than not, released to the public albeit late.

Two issues of The Economist, however, never made it to the market this year. The May 20th newspaper contained an article called ‘Putting the Raj in Rajapaksa’ that described how President Rajapaksa had put himself in control of 78 government institutions following the UPFA victory in parliamentary elections. “Reconciliation takes a back seat as a band of brothers settles in,” it said. The May 27th edition published an editorial titled ‘Don’t ban Ban’ that said foreigners should press Sri Lanka’s government to accept a UN inquiry into the war.

The confiscation of the newspaper was reported by major international news organisations. The last time this happened (when customs delayed distribution over an editorial that criticised the passing of the 18th Amendment) the story even made its way into the daily press briefing at the UN headquarters in New York.

If anything, it is unnecessary — indeed, nonsensical — to detain a print edition of an international magazine when the content that the government finds objectionable has already been disseminated via the internet. Each time The Economist is confiscated, the sensitive content is more widely circulated through email, read on internet sites and debated.

None of the articles or editorials contains anything the Sri Lankan public don’t already know. It is doubly ridiculous therefore to hear Keheliya Rambukwella, government spokesman, say: “Sri Lanka has no official censorship but any material that comes to the country triggers a threat in terms of national security and the country’s sovereignty may be held for a couple of days. That is the government policy.”

In the end, this pointless exercise only leads to extensive negative publicity for the government despite most detained issues being eventually released.

North still taboo

Then, there is this question of permission to cover the north of Sri Lanka. This is particularly irksome to foreign journalists or to journalists working for foreign news organisations based in Sri Lanka. Reporters from local media institutions do not seem to face the constraints they do.

From conversations with a variety of journalists attached to international media (both here and abroad), it was learnt that authorisation is still required for anything beyond Omanthai. Once an application is lodged, the modus operandi is to give the applicants such a run around that they either quit or agree to rare chaperoned tours. The latter come complete with a pre-arranged programme and handpicked interview candidates. Even in this post-war era, the government refuses to entertain anything but propaganda.

Travel to Jaffna, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi or any other part of the north for the purpose of reporting needs defence ministry consent. Even a simple story on de-mining would require permission. One visiting journalist found that defence ministry approval was necessary for a story about fishing off the east coast. Another asked permission to cover elections in April and gave up after deducing that the okay would never come.

And the BBC discovered in early September that the defence ministry would not grant it authorisation to cover public hearings of the LLRC in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu. Another leading international newspaper tried for several weeks to obtain defence ministry permission for the same event but was sent from pillar to post before cancelling its intended visit.

This is not only bizarre — given that these were public hearings — it is a gross injustice to the innocent Tamils that gave evidence before the commission. Deliberately blocked from the process, international media were forced to scavenge for scraps of information from local newspapers.

The LLRC was intended to be an exercise in accountability artfully designed to keep the international community at bay. The government should have encouraged the participation of foreign media in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu. Instead, the authorities ran scared. Apprehension over information that northern Tamils may hold seems to guide media policy even now.

Not that there is any declared media policy. Reporters are merely left with the bitter emotion that they are being sent around in circles. There is a general feeling, especially among visiting journalists, of not knowing what needs permission, who grants permission or what the set way is of applying for permission. “We were never turned down,” said one reporter, asking to remain anonymous. “Our requests were held up and we went back and forth.”

There is no published list of areas to which travel would require defence ministry permission. Would, for instance, a reporting job in Mannar need prior approval? Could you go to Batticaloa and film freely? Are all areas of Trincomalee open to foreign journalists? “You could be turned back at any point and there is nobody to take responsibility,” said another reporter, also on condition of anonymity.

A visiting Japanese photographer was turned down permission in August to use the A9 road for travel to Jaffna. He tried his luck on public transport, was detected at Omanthai and turned back. He returned to the Media Centre for National Security and applied for permission. He was told he couldn’t travel through Wanni but could fly to Jaffna. He ended up being escorted around the peninsula.

So, what stories in the north are taboo to foreign journalists and why? Writers and photographers recently taken by the Central Bank to an official event in Kilinochchi were prohibited from taking any photographs between Vavuniya and Kilinochchi.

Sometimes applications lodged with the Media Centre for National Security seem to disappear into thin air and there is no number that a journalist could call to track progress. There is certainly no guaranteed timeframe within which permission is granted.

You could wait forever, as one international reporter put it. And certainly many of them have been. It makes the government seem more insular than ever at a time when there is so much to say for openness and so little in defence of such mystifying restrictions.

“Journalists not permitted into certain places”: Director - Media Centre for National Security

Lakbima News asked Laxman Hulugalle, director of the Media Centre for National Security, about the procedure for granting permission to journalists to report in the north.

“Media who asked at the right time were given permission,” Hulugalle said. “Apart from a couple of technical problems, we have allowed all foreign and local journalists through. Only thing, they also have to understand that if they send me a letter at 3.30 pm or 4 pm and ask for permission to travel the following day, I won’t be able to give. But if they follow procedure and send in time, there is no delay... nothing.”

“Yesterday, I got a request to go to the north without a proper date and without people who are going,” he continued. “Because of that, I had to request them to send names and exact date.”

Hulugalle added, however, that journalists are not permitted into “certain places”. Asked why the BBC was not granted approval to cover LLRC hearings in the north, he said: “I also heard about this but I was out of the country for one week during that time so I don’t know if there was a delay.”

Hulugalle said journalists were free to travel to the east although they “could not go into camps and interview soldiers and various other people”.

For the sake of clarity, he explained that all applications have to be lodged through him. “They are sent to the ministry of defence through me,” he said. “I have to recommend. Generally it takes about one working day or two. They can always send an email or something. We have no policy of preventing any journalist but if any organisation who has harmed the integrity of Sri Lanka asks, we have an inquiry. For instance, if Channel 4 wants to come again, we have to think twice.”

There is no point addressing letters directly to the secretary of defence or other officials in the defence establishment because these are returned to MCNS for approval, he said.

While on his official visit to New York City for the United Nations General Assembly, President Mahinda Rajapaksa met with leading American business leaders at a luncheon to outline emerging opportunities for investment in Sri Lanka.

Business executives from a variety of industries, including the aerospace and defense community, the hospitality and tourism industry, and beverage industry attended the luncheon held at New York City's Helmsley Hotel. Executives from the Coca Cola Co., the Boeing Co., Google, Hilton Hotels & Resorts and Starwood Hotels & Resorts were among the nearly 100 Business Leaders, Analysts, representatives of Chambers of Commerce and Industry present at the occasion.

Amidst his busy schedule President Rajapaksa mingled with the American Business leaders meeting and greeting each person individually and requesting them to focus new interest in Sri Lanka as an investment opportunity.

Members of the US business community shared the view of a key representative of the pharmaceutical industry giant Pfizer Inc., that "This forum has the potential to grow into a US-Sri Lanka business council to bring together companies and government." "Companies like Pfizer want to invest in emerging markets like Sri Lanka," the Pfizer representative said, noting that the business luncheon allowed corporate executives to meet government officials and Sri Lankan business leaders. "It is a great way to start a dialogue," he said.

The Keynote Speech by Prof. GL Peiris, Minister of External Affairs Sri Lanka, said Sri Lanka boasts an economy with strong fundamentals - a market poised for continued growth and international investment. Noting the nation's promising economic future, Prof. Peiris said "Sri Lanka is today, without any exaggeration, one of the world's best destinations for investment.... We are on the threshold of an economic renaissance in Sri Lanka.''

The Sri Lankan delegation's visit to the United States comes as the nation enjoys remarkable economic success during a global downturn. Sri Lanka's per capita income more than doubled during the past five years and the International Monetary Fund recently upgraded Sri Lanka to "middle income emerging market" status.

Ms. Esperanza Gomez Jelalian, executive director of the Asia Department at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, noted the Chamber's support for Sri Lanka. "We are firmly committed to a working relationship between our countries," Ms. Jelalian said

After video presentation that focused on the new opportunities for investment with peace, and a stable government, the participants were apprised that as the second-fastest growing Asian economy after China, Sri Lanka now looks for additional development of the nation's infrastructure, including its roads, ports, energy sector and water systems.

The booming tourism industry in Sri Lanka is expected to continue growing and the expansion of hotels and related development in Sri Lanka is needed to match growing demand. Those present were reminded that Sri Lankan tourism industry received a huge boost early this year when The New York Times named Sri Lanka the No. 1 one place to travel to in 2010, with similar accolades from the National Geographic and other leading travel publications.

Prof Peiris hailed what he saw as an "Economic Renaissance in Sri Lanka where opportunities abound for Foreign Investors"; he identified wide range of areas in tourism alone, such as Eco-Tourism, Health Tourism with the search for cures closer to nature as found in Ayurveda, and Spiritual Interest, manifest in the Buddhist traditions in the country. He also saw the possibilities that are available for value addition in the agricultural sector, bringing Sri Lankan agricultural products to the threshold of the western markets, and the vast untapped resources in the fisheries sector.

Emphasizing the remarkable success of the Sri Lankan economy after the undoubted defeat of terrorism, Secretary to the President Lalith Weeratunga said a clear example of the buoyant economy was the fact that although it had taken one year since the end of the conflict for the Colombo Stock Exchange, among the best performing bourses in the world, to reach the first trillion rupees in market capitalization, taking just nine months to exceed the second trillion, with foreign investors contributing much to the rise.

The US Business Leaders were also able to interact with the 15 member Sri Lankan Business Delegation that was also present in New York.

Sri Lanka's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has summoned the propaganda unit head of main opposition United national party (UNP) parliamentarian Mangala Samaraweera to record a statement.

The CID has summoned Samaraweera to the headquarters on Tuesday (28) at 10:30 a.m.

Samaraweera has told the local media that the CID wanted to record a statement from him regarding some posters that were put up by the party to protest against the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.

According to Samaraweera, a CID Inspector had gone to the UNP headquarters Sirikotha, and left a message and had later contacted him and asked him to come to the CID headquarters.

The case regarding the controversial posters was earlier investigated by the Mirihana Police and was later handed over to the CID.

Samaraweera has already claimed responsibility for designing the posters and placing an order to print them at a press at Delkanda in Nugegoda. The controversial posters depict President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the former military dictator of Uganda, Idi Amin and a god with six heads stamped with images of the President's brothers and sons.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

By K.Sahadevan.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Truth cannot be hidden for far too long. As for Sri Lanka, concrete and credible evidence of how the incumbent Rajapaksa government conducted and won the protracted war against the Tamil Tiger rebels keep surfacing.

A witness to atrocities in the final stages of the war against the Tamil Tiger rebels in the island’s north, making a voluntary testimony before a Presidential Commission of Inquiry, has said on September 19, 2010 that the military “used cluster bombs and phosphorus bombs against innocent civilians”, killing 400-600 civilians daily.

“The Army used banned phosphorus and cluster bombs against the LTTE, when the LTTE stage counter-attacks against the military fighter jets carrying out air raids on government-declared No-Fire Zones. This caused mass-scale destruction to the lives of the innocent civilians remained there. The situation went to the extent where approximately 400 – 600 were getting killed and 1,000 getting wounded on a daily basis,” N. Suntharamurthi, an official from the Pooneryn Agriculture Development Authority, shared his experience with the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) at Pooneryn.

If the video clip, accepted by the UN as an authentic one, showing the Sri Lankan soldiers shooting down a number of blind-folded naked Tamil youths at an unknown location in the northern war zone, has already become a credible evidence against the war-crime probe charges, the eye-witness accounts of the war-victims to its own Commission have placed the hawkish Sri Lankan government in an awkward position.

BBC barred

The appointment of yet another Presidential Commission in the annals of the history of Sri Lanka was aimed at neutralising the international pressure calling for an international probe on the alleged war crimes by the government troops during the final stage of the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Trying to give some credibility to this commission, the government held a session of hearing of this commission at the Kilinochchi, former political and administrative nerve centre of the LTTE. The motives of the government were exposed when the BBC was denied access to cover this session of hearings.

However, the motives of the Commission have backfired on the government’s face due to the brave but chilling eye-witness accounts of the civilians, who were fortunate or otherwise to have survived to relate the story. Perturbed by these startling revelations, the government immediately got its official military spokesman to deny all allegations outright.

It is now an open secret that senior journalist Prageeth Egnaligoda, who is missing over the past six months, was abducted because he was in possession of credible information with regard to the chemical weapons that the government troops have bought, kept in store and used during the final weeks of the war.

"Zero civilian casualty" myth

The verbal accounts of the people, who have witnessed their family members and next of kin getting killed in hundreds due to the usage of such weapons of mass destruction, have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Colombo government was violating the international laws in the war against its own people.

With the credible war crime evidences coming out, the government finds it difficult to defend its position that no such crimes were committed by its troops and not a single civilian was killed in the war by its action.

The government’s fragile position in this issue was very clear when President Mahinda Rajapaksa made a point in his address at the 65 th Session of the UN General Assembly this week that there are “serious problems with the current rules governing the conduct of the war”, implying that they need radical changes.

In what is widely seen as “the most controversial passage of his speech”, President Rajapaksa, who publicly challenged in local forums to face any international probe on war crime charges, said at this apex international forum that it was therefore “worth examining the capacity of international humanitarian law to meet today’s needs”.

Western duplicity

Western diplomats commenting on his speech said the Sri Lanka President, in a way, has accepted he would not be able to escape if the war crime charges are probed impartially and independently at international courts under the existing international laws.

It is as good as anybody’s guessing that the western diplomats who staged a walkout when Iranian President made controversial remarks suggesting that “the US government could have "orchestrated the 9-11 attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grips on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime”, decided not to protest to President Rajapaksa’s solemn idea of changing the existing international laws just to suit him.

As for the Sri Lankan President, the idea of changing the existing laws to suit his needs is something that he is well used to in his own land. Last week he brought a radical change in the country’s existing constitution to undermine the independence of the key institutions of the country, including police, judiciary and elections commission. The constitutional amendment which was hurriedly passed in the parliament without consulting the electorate, has removed the two-term limit of the president to rule the country.

Commenting further on the civilian hardships, Suntharamurthy has said that with the war getting aggressively spread across from north-western Mannar district to the north-eastern Mullaitivu, displacement of civilians became a commonplace.

“The displacement that began in Mannar stretched to Mullivaikkal. The suffering of civilians during this period of time was immense. Both parties to the war were responsible for this,” he said.

“Because the government established so-called No-Fire Zones and placed civilians in them, the LTTE was able to recruit new cadre at ease and also store weaponry in them. When we were in the safe zones, we had to face life-threatening circumstances. Using civilians as a protective shield, the LTTE attacked the Army using shells and quickly moved out of the area, only to have the army retaliate with shell and air attacks. Nearly 200 people were getting killed daily,” he told the Commission.

“Whenever we tried, the LTTE didn’t allow us to move and attacked us with raw blades. They shot into the air to scare us. At the same time, the Army also shot at civilians who attempted to cross into areas under their control”.

“Because of this, we stayed in the safe zone. Puthumathalan, Suthanthirapuram, Ambalavanpokkanai, Valaippadu and Valignarmadam were some of the areas we stayed in. On one occasion, Army shelling into the safe zone killed 17 women and 6 children on the spot,” he has said, calling on the LLRC to be different to the previous commissions of the country’s history.

Sources say that only fifteen of nearly four hundred persons, most of them women, were allowed to witness before the Commission.

Fate of the surrendered cadres

A woman giving witness before the Commission in Kandaavalai has said in her account that she had seen the LTTE combatants who had surrendered themselves to the government troops being taken away in sixteen buses on the final day of the war.

Meanwhile, the wife of a top Tamil Tiger leader has revealed that several key rebel leaders including her husband were missing, after surrendering to the government troops during the final days of the bloody war in May 2009.

Anandhi Sasitharan, the wife S. Elilan, LTTE’s former political commissar of the Eastern Trincomalee district has made these revelations to the BBC Tamil Service after giving her verbal account before the LLRC.

“I along with my three children and key LTTE leaders including my husband Elilan surrendered to the Sri Lankan government troops on September 18, 2009. They surrendered to the army as a big group led by an English school principal (Catholic priest) Rt Frances at Vedduvahal area in the Mullaitivu district followed by the civilians on that day,” she has said in a telephone interview last week.

“Wives and next of kin of those who surrendered to the military along with my husband have also been desperately searching for their loved ones, but there was no information about any of them to date. Even the Catholic Priest, Rt Frances has not been located to date,” Anandhi Sasitharan said, giving a detailed account of how and when they surrendered to the military.

“Among those surrendered along with Elilan were deputy leader of the LTTE’s political wing Thangan, administrative unit leader Poovannan, Iniviyan, Ilamparuthy, sports unit leader Raja and his three children, former LTTE in-charge of international affairs Lawrence Thilakar, Yogaratnam Yogi, Theepan, Kutty and Babu,” she said, adding that she could not remember the names of others.

“I was with my husband when surrendering took place, but the military officials identifying him as Mavilaru Elilan took him away and sent me, being a government servant, to the Vavuniya refugee camp”.

“There was no news of my husband to date, not even a letter. I met some of the disabled LTTE cadres who had already been released by the government. They too denied any knowledge of my husband,” Anandhi Sasitharan said in the BBC interview.

The Rajapaksa regime is already in trouble with its own army commander charging the top government defence authorities of giving orders to the ground commanders to shoot and kill a large number of key unarmed LTTE leaders, including its political wing head B. Nadesan and its peace secretariat head S. Pulithevan while surrendering with white flags, this is yet another evidence that indicates even the surrendered LTTE ex-combatants are missing while in protective military custody.

Witness protection

Meanwhile, senior Tamil leader and Member of Parliament of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) for the Jaffna district, Mavai Senadhirajah, has urged the government to give witness protection for the Tamil civilians who testified before its Commission.

Raising the witness-protection issue in parliament, MP Senadhirajah said that the official military spokesman has unfairly denied the witness accounts of the people before the commission.

“This has instilled fear among the people who came forward to share their experience before this Presidential Commission of Inquiry,” the Jaffna district MP has said.

The most recent sessions of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) were held in the conflict affected North from 18 to 20 September, at which a large number of persons, particularly women, made representations. Of course one wouldn’t know it by reading the newspapers, listening to the radio or watching television. In what appears to be a complete information blackout, Sinhala and English language media, which gave considerable prominence to representations made by those appearing before the Commission in Colombo, such as Jayantha Dhanapala and Austin Fernando, were conspicuously silent when the LLRC held sittings in the area where the final battle between the Sri Lanka armed forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was fought. In contrast, the Tamil newspapers carried heart wrenching accounts of mostly women who had lost, in many cases, their entire families.

According to Prof. G.L. Peiris, the Minister for External Affairs, the government established the LLRC ‘drawing upon the experience of South Africa in particular’ with the primary focus on ‘restorative justice, enabling people to pick up the pieces, to get on with their lives’. In his speech at the 9th IISS Asian Security Summit on 6 June 2010 he further reiterated that ‘The State is firmly resolved to put at their disposal all the resources that would facilitate this difficult task’.

Speaking about the LLRC at the 15th session of the UN Human Rights Council on 13 September, Hon. Mohan Peiris, the Attorney-General of Sri Lanka pointed to the public nature of its hearings and described the mandate of the Commission which includes ‘determining responsibility regarding past events in question related to the conflict’, while rejecting ‘aspersions already cast on the work of this Commission’. If assessed within the framework as set out by the Minister and the Attorney-General, what does the LLRC’s performance in Killinochchi and Mullaitivu tell us about the possibilities for post-war reconciliation?

The majority of persons in Killinochchi and Mullaitivu had no knowledge of the LLRC’s visit to the area. There were a few who had access to more resources and information than most and had written asking to appear before to the LLRC. These persons were informed of the Commission’s visit. Most others who heard the LLRC was going to hold sessions in the area only days prior to the visit, spent a couple of days attempting to ascertain the location of the hearing. Requests made to several government officials for information about the Commission’s visit either elicited no response or the people were informed they could not attend the sessions. With much difficulty, a large number of women found out where the hearings were being held and turned up in large numbers. It transpired that most of those living in the areas the Commission was visiting were women who had suffered injuries in the war and whose husbands, fathers and sons had either been killed or were in detention or ‘rehabilitation’ camps.

Although the merits of engaging with the LLRC can be debated, according to activists in the area, many women felt that being able to speak about the hardships and losses they had experienced was in and of itself a relief. As has been reported in the Tamil media the LLRC was clearly unprepared to cope with the number of women who turned up and therefore requested the women to make written submissions. The situation was exacerbated by the limited administrative support available to the LLRC, particularly with regard to Tamil translators, a fact which became glaringly apparent weeks ago when Minister Douglas Devananda who appeared before the Commission made his representation in Tamil. It seemed the Commissioners were also not equipped to deal with persons who had experienced immense hardship and were in need of emotional support. Once again, as has been widely reported in the Tamil media, the women often became emotional or broke down in the middle of their representations. The Commissioners however showed little sensitivity or empathy. Women also reported seeing men who appeared to be CID officials photographing persons who made representations and even those who attended the hearings.

In this context, can one believe that this, in the words of Prof. Peiris, ‘home grown, home spun mechanism’ has the capacity to bring ‘people together, accentuating, not the things that divide them, but the whole reservoir of values which all the people of Sri Lanka share’? Was U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton wrong in her assessment when she reportedly told Prof. Peiris that ‘This experiment holds promise’?

The non-existent media reportage of the sittings of the LLRC in Killinochchi and Mullaitivu illustrates the challenges faced in constructing an alternative narrative about the war from the perspective of the affected person- the victim-survivor. The reasons for the deafening silence of the media are manifold. The most obvious reason is the fear of the state that charges of war crimes might be leveled against it at an international forum which has meant that anyone who has sought to construct an alternate narrative of the war has been and continues to be vilified and attacked. Dishearteningly, the majority of Sri Lankans appear satisfied with the version put forward by the state and exhibit hostility towards anyone who seeks to deconstruct the dominant ‘truth’. The other reason is related to the militarization of the Vanni and the treatment of its population. As evidenced by the refusal to grant permission to the BBC to travel to the area and cover the proceedings, more than a year after the end of the war movement in and out of the Vanni remains strictly controlled. Local and international humanitarian organisations that wish to work in the return areas have to obtain approval from a number of state structures with little transparency about the procedure to submit applications. For instance, to date, the working methods and rules of procedure of the Presidential Task Force are unknown.

The only constant in this scenario is that rules are ad-hoc and can change without notice at any moment. Even organisations that wish to merely visit the Vanni to conduct assessments of the needs of the population in order to formulate projects to address them or meet with local organisations in the area, have to obtain approval to travel to the area. Although the government is supposedly committed to enabling the returnee IDPs rebuild their lives, its’ actions indicate callousness toward a population that continues to be monitored, controlled and prevented from living with dignity. Even those who travel to the area to visit family or relatives are reportedly not allowed to stay overnight. Of course, there are no published rules regarding work or travel to the return areas that are accessible to the public. This could even lead defenders of the state to declare that these ‘rules’ and restrictions on travel and movement are imaginary but the experience of organisations and individuals who work or have tried to work in and travel to the area prove otherwise.

Although many individuals, the majority of them women, have appeared before the LLRC despite possible harm, threats or intimidation they may suffer, can and should people be expected to engage with the Commission and tell their stories, which most often challenge the dominant narrative of the war, in the context of a heavily militarised environment in which they are unable to exercise even the most basic rights to which they are entitled? Further, when men who appear to be state intelligence services are present and photographically recording those who appear before the Commission, how can the safety of those who make representations be guaranteed, particularly women who live alone and are already vulnerable due to lack of shelter, electricity and other factors that contribute to their physical security?[1]

Leaving aside the issues related to the limited mandate and legitimacy and impartiality, or lack thereof of the Commission, the manner in which it has managed the sittings in the war affected areas illustrates the lack of respect for the lived experiences of these people. It also makes one wonder whether the voices of the war affected will be reflected in the final report and recommendations of the LLRC. A Commission with the stated aim of promoting national unity and reconciliation needs to exhibit greater transparency and engage with the public. For instance, when it travels to the former conflict areas, the place of hearing and procedure to be followed when making a representation should be widely disseminated. As those in the return areas do not have access to electronic media it should be done through the distribution of pamphlets, posting notices in the GA offices etc.

Although no process can offer a complete version of the past as there will always be contested versions of events, for a people whose lives have been so brutally torn apart by war the least the state could provide is freedom to place their experiences within the public space. The hearings in the war affected areas are important as they will enable the construction of a narrative of the war that challenges the dominant state sponsored narrative which denies the suffering of the people and refuses to allow them public space to grieve and acknowledge their losses. Based on the manner in which the Commission has functioned to date, one is forced to conclude that it is most likely to lend itself to the project to reinforce the dominant state narrative thereby ensuring that the dissenting voices of the war affected are permanently silenced, memories erased and history re-written. This collective amnesia, which is being foisted upon the people, can have dangerous consequences, from bolstering a culture of impunity to self-blame on the part of the victim-survivors. The government has repeatedly stated that the LLRC’s focus is restorative justice rather than retributive justice implying that issues of accountability and justice will not be examined or discussed. In doing so they fail to recognize that restorative justice does not constitute erasing the past and denying victims and survivors the right to grieve and memorialize.

At the hearings in Colombo every person who appeared before the Commission was asked for his/her opinion on the means through which communities can be reconciled in post-war Sri Lanka. Yet, at the hearings in Killinochchi and Mullaitivu the Commissioners failed to understand that the first step towards reconciliation is allowing people to live with dignity, which in the case of those affected by the war includes enabling their narratives to become part of the broader narrative about the war.

When Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka met with the UN's Ban Ki-moon on Friday morning, Ban did not raise the slow starting UN panel of experts on war crimes in the country.

Five hours after the meeting, the UN issued a terse summary of what was discussed. It mentions only Rajapaksa's own “Lessons Learnt” panel, and not the UN's.

Inner City Press, covering the meeting on Sudan later on Friday with a “free range” UN pass, noted Sir Lanka's Prime Minister G.L. Peiris seated on the North Lawn's second floor, reading.

In his previous trip inside the UN, Peiris refused to take any questions from the Press. In Washington, he walked out of a session at the National Press Club when he thought tough questions might be asked.

Neither he nor Rajapaksa have scheduled any press availability at the UN, unlike, only on Friday, the Presidents of Bolivia, Cyprus and Nigeria, to all of whom Inner City Press asked questions.

While Ban met with Nigeria's Goodluck Jonathan before he met with Rajapaksa, the UN's summary of the Nigeria meeting was issued hours before the Sri Lanka one. Does this reflect greater checking with or push back by Sri Lanka? Or, some ask, ineptitude in the UN's Sri Lanka team?

Its last read out about Sri Lanka came out at 10 p.m. When Inner City Press asked if it had been checked with the government, spokesman Martin Nesirky said no, there had just been a technical snafu. But how come a snafu on Friday as to Sri Lanka, and not Nigeria?

Readout of the Secretary-General’s meeting with President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka

The Secretary-General’s discussion with President Rajapaksa focused on the need to move forward expeditiously on outstanding issues covered in the joint statement of May 2009, particularly a political settlement, reconciliation and accountability. The Secretary-General underlined that the President’s strong political mandate provided a unique opportunity to deliver on his commitments to address these issues. The President underlined that development and education in the North were integral to national reconciliation. He gave examples of progress made on reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in this regard.

The President updated the Secretary-General on the work of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.

But what about the UN's panel? And what about the answers promised long ago by Ban's spokesman Nesirky about Ban's personal relationship with Rajapaksa, including prior to becoming Secretary General?

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Lanka Business Online.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Sri Lanka's government may take away more money from the salaries of private sector workers to set up another pension fund, a government minister said, amid concerns about the management of an existing fund.

The new pension fund may take up to two percent from the salary of a private sector worker and make employers contribute another two percent, labour minister Gamini Lokuge said.

Final details of the new pension scheme are being worked out, Lokuge told Vimasuma.com, our sister news website.

The minister said government may also contribute to the new pension fund.

"Right now the government's contribution to the pension fund is being calculated," Lokuge said.

The 'government' gets money from taxing the people, borrowing or printing money and creating inflation, but Sri Lanka's rulers have for years have behaved as if the government has its own sources of money.

State enterprises which could generate money are also making record losses. Critics say any government spending therefore increases the burden on all the people including private sector workers and is therefore a deceptive practice.

State workers and politicians do not have to contribute for their pension and which has defined benefits and gets it from state tax revenues. They also do not pay income taxes on their salaries while private sector workers are forced to pay income tax.

At the moment private sector workers contribute 8.0 percent of their salaries to the Employees' Provident Fund' (EPF) which has been largely used to finance government borrowings at rates that are not fully market determined.

The employer contributes 12.0 percent.

Another fund has been made with a 3.0 percent of a salary contributed by employers. Private sector workers have no say on the investment policies of either fund, regardless of their age, financing needs and ability to bear risks.

Even the earnings of the EPF are taxed while state workers and politicians get tax free pensions.

Some have resorted to desperate measures like defaulting on loans collateralized from their pension balances to get the money out.

A few years ago an attempt to create a contributed pension fund for state workers was scuttled by the next administration that came to power.

The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Friday completed the fourth review of Sri Lanka's economic performance under the Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) and approved an immediate disbursement of about US$ 212.5 million.

Under the US$ 2.5 billion SBA approved by the IMF in July 24, 2009, the IMF has so far disbursed a total of about US$ 1.27 billion to Sri Lanka.

The Executive Board today also concluded the 2010 Article IV consultation with Sri Lanka, a press release issued by the IMF said.

Following the Executive Board's discussion on Sri Lanka, Murilo Portugal, Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair, has said that Sri Lanka's performance under the program has been satisfactory as overall economic conditions are improving and the economy is likely to show strong growth this year on the back of improved fundamentals and political stability.

Sri Lanka recorded an economic growth rate of 8.5 percent in thee second quarter of 2010, the highest ever recorded quarterly GDP growth since 2002.

The IMF official has highlighted that fundamental tax reform, including reform of the investment promotion regime, is central to achieving the government's budget deficit reduction targets while creating the fiscal space for reconstruction and infrastructure investment, as well as social spending.

In this regard, the IMF says the 2011 budget will be the key to demonstrate the government's continued commitment to the program's goals.

The IMF says further improvements in monetary policy formulation will provide useful support for macroeconomic stability and the country's Central Bank now in a position to move gradually toward a flexible framework to target the inflation more directly.

The recent introduction of more exchange rate flexibility will support such a transition while also helping to maintain competitiveness, it says.

"The government's financial sector reform agenda is on track. Further reforms include putting in place a deposit insurance system, establishing a regulatory framework for private sector pensions, and deepening capital markets, which will facilitate private investment," the Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair has stated.

Sri Lanka has seen a remarkable progress in the country's economy after the government wiped out the separatist Tamil Tiger rebel group, LTTE, in May 2009 and ended the three-decade long armed conflict.

Abusiness leader in Sri Lanka has called on the government to apologise for itself and on behalf of previous regimes for suffering during the war.

It was the latest in a series of submissions given to a government-appointed commission examining the final years of the conflict.

It has also emerged that witnesses in the north accused the armed forces of killing civilians in shell attacks.

The government says that defeated Tamil Tiger militants are to blame.

Former Ceylon Chamber of Commerce President Chandra Jayarathne said that after its victory celebrations last year the government should have undergone what he called a "process of atonement".

He said that he hoped the commission would lead to a "public expression of regret and apology on behalf of all the leaders and governments of the past, specifically to the war victims and to the nation at large".

Mr Jayarathne also said that, among other things, there was a perception that disappearances and arbitrary arrests were still continuing.

According to accounts emerging from the panel's visit to what was the Tamil Tigers' last stronghold earlier this week, a Tamil civilian who fled the war zone accused the navy of repeatedly shelling refugee boats as they crossed a lagoon to escape, even though they shouted that they were civilians.

Eight people were killed.

In separate testimony, a woman also described how her daughter and son-in-law were also killed by shells as they fled.

Witnesses accused the Tamil Tigers of violently trying to stop them from escaping.

The BBC was barred from the proceedings in the north - these accounts came from Tamil-language newspapers.

A special team of Colombo Crime Division arrested the owner of Churapi Achchakam (printing press), C. Kuruthev, in Jaffna Tuesday and took him to Colombo for inquiry, sources in Jaffna said. Kuruthev’s brother, the General Manager of the Tamil daily Namathu Eezhanaadu, C. Sivamaharajah, had been assassinated at his house in Thellippazhai in August 2006. Sri Lanka Minister Douglas Devananda, the head of Eelam People's Democratic Party (EPDP), had sought to acquire Churapi Achchakam to print a Tamil Daily in the name of Thinamurasu to which Kuruthev had not consented, media circles in Jaffna said.

Namathu Eezhanaadu daily had been printed in Churapi Achchakam and after the killing of Sivamaharajah it had stopped printing the daily.

Churapi Achchakam located on Naavalar Veethi in Nalloor had been under the control of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) after the death of Sivamaharajah.

Kuruthev has been only printing materials ordered by private persons after that.

It is alleged that Douglas Devananda had been trying to entice the employees of Namathu Eezhanaadu to work for his Thinamurasu daily, the sources said.

"Although we cried out that we were innocent civilians and asked the troops not to harm us our boats were shelled 8 times as a result of which many were killed" said Ratnasingham Easwary, a Tamil civilian from Vanni, on Monday (20), making a representation at the hearing of the SL Government appointed Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).

'At around 3 am on 10 May 2009 we escaped by boat via the lagoon without the knowledge of the LTTE. Along the way our boats were intercepted by the Navy. We called out that we were civilians and asked them not to shoot at us. Yet minutes later 8 shells were directed towards our boats from the Navy ships. Of the 20 who travelled in our boat 8 were killed. The rest who were struggling to keep afloat were rescued by small navy boats. We were then taken to Pullmodai, where my sister’s husband was taken away by the Navy. Today, we do not know of his whereabouts. Although we have made complaints to the ICRC and the Human Rights Commission he has still not been found' he further said, reported Colombo based Tamil Daily "Thinakkural."

A Commissioner who intervened at this point queried whether any LLTE boats were in the vicinity of their boats and if they had any arms on board when they were attacked by the Navy. The woman replied in the negative and said the boat’s inhabitants were all civilians and that they shouted out many times that they were civilians.'

Kanagasabai Selvanayagi of Vattraapalai in her representation stated as follows:

'On 15 May 2009 I, my daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren escaped from Mullaivaaikkal and were en route to the government controlled areas. During a shell attack at the time my daughter died instantly. When we were trying to lift my daughter’s body my son-in-law was killed on the spot in another shell attack while my granddaughter was seriously injured. The army carried my injured granddaughter away. My grandson remained on the spot. I was escorted away from the area by the army. Those who passed by the spot later informed me that the bodies of my daughter and son-in-law were lying on the bridge. To date I have no idea about the whereabouts of my granddaughter and grandson.

Many people made representations about the failure to allow IDPs to return to many areas of the Mullaitivu district. They said that the most number of disappearances had taken place in the Mullaitivu district and requested once again that the government make available information about those who have disappeared.

(The above account was extracted from a more detailed report compiled by the Groundviews website. To read the full report click here.)

Anumber of Tamils in Sri Lanka have complained before the government commission investigating the last phase of Tamil Eelam war that their family members who served with the Tamil Tigers disappeared after surrendering by the end of the war in May last year.

According to the BBC, the panel now intends to question security force officials on the subject of missing people.

A woman claimed that her husband and two children, all former Tigers, surrendered to the army after being mediated by two Roman Catholic priests. She further stated that her family and others who surrendered were taken away in 16 buses, but now she reportedly does not have any idea about their whereabouts.

Others, who said their family members were forcibly recruited by the rebels, had shared almost similar stories.

A shocking testimony of N Sundaramoorthy, an agriculture official from within the war zone, revealed that in one incident, shelling and aerial strikes killed some 40 to 45 pregnant women and babies as they queued for food. His own daughter was injured when a bullet went through her throat.

Earlier, the Sri Lankan government said the commission is the definitive way to examine the final years of the conflict and promote reconciliation and rejected international calls for an external inquiry.

fair use notice:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka distributes this material without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.